The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in B. L. Harbert International, LLC v. Hercules Steel Co., Case No. 05-11153 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2006), in a non-reinsurance case, strongly endorsed the finality of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, by affirming the confirmation of an arbitration award (and the denial of a motion to vacate the award). The Court obviously believed that the Appellant appealed merely because it disagreed with the arbitration decision. The Appellant contended that the arbitration award reflected a manifest disregard for the law, which the Court held was an exceptional circumstance requiring clear evidence that an arbitrator was conscious of the law and deliberately disregarded it. Concluding that the proof did not come close to satisfying this standard, the Court considered imposing sanctions on Appellant for the appeal, voicing a strong disapproval for continuing arbitration proceedings through post-award court challenges.
Arbitration / Court Decisions
Court rejects "follow the settlements" doctrine
A US District Court rejected the application of the “follow the settlements” doctrine in a facultative reinsurance context, entering judgment for the reinsurer. The Court found that the reinsured had failed to conduct a reasonable and businesslike investigation and determination of the claims, paying claims that were outside the time frame of the insurance, resulting in grossly negligent and bad faith conduct by the reinsured. Suter v. General Accident Insurance Company of America, Case No. 01-2686 (USDC D. N.J. July 14, 2006). If you ever questioned whether inquiries into whether the application of exceptions to the follow the settlement doctrine should be fact specific, this 67 page opinion will provide the answer.
Seventh Circuit holds that FAA does not provide for "judicial review" of arbitration awards
The Seventh Circuit, in a case involving an appeal from an arbitration award in an NASD securities case, stated that “[i]t is tempting to think that courts are engaged in judicial review of arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act, but they are not” due to the narrow grounds for vacating such an award. The Court affirmed the confirmation of an award entered by a panel based upon a motion for summary judgment by the Respondent after the Claimant had presented his case, rejecting the contention that there was no evidence to support the award. Noting that the non-statutory “manifest disregard of the law” basis for vacating an award is limited to matters in which the arbitrators “direct the parties to violate the law,” the Court deferred to whatever inferences the arbitrators might have drawn from what the evidence presented shows, and what it omits. Wise v. Wachovia Securities, Case No. 05-2640 (7th Cir. June 7, 2006). Since the Respondent had not presented any evidence prior to the decision on the merits by the panel, this case demonstrates very substantial deference by a court to an arbitration panel's determination of facts and the sufficiency of evidence.
UK Court rejects contention that party may be an additional insured as an undisclosed principal
A broker was directed to procure a policy on a vessal for the benefit of two parties as co-insureds. It failed to have one party named as an insured. When a loss occurred and the claim of the unnamed party was denied, litigation unsued. The UK Court of Appeal held that losses of the unnamed party resulted from breach of duty by the broker, and that the unnamed party could not be considered to be a co-insured based upon its status as an undisclosed principal of the policy's beneficiary. Talbot Underwriting Ltd. v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray, Inc., [2006] EWCA 889 (June 29, 2006).
SPECIAL FOCUS: solvent schemes of arrangement
Solvent schemes of arrangement are processes through which solvent companies may commute all policies within the purview of the scheme, effecting a voluntary dissolution or clean reorganization with a relatively short tail. Found predominantly in the UK, they have been subject to some recent court decisions, which have included jurisdictional questions, such as whether such schemes can be imposed where some creditors or policy holders are domiciled in the US or other countries. They are controversial with US companies since they effect a reorganization outside bankruptcy laws or “traditional” US insurance rehabilitation/liquidation proceedings:
- This process is described by PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Marsh Risk Consulting in special papers found on their web sites.
- PWC has compiled a guide to specific schemes of arrangement, which describes actual schemes of arrangement administered in the UK.
- Rhode Island is the first US jurisdiction to adopt a statutory structure providing for such a process, which can be utilized only by companies domiciled under Rhode Island law. Since its adoption in 2002, there have not been any reported court opinions relating to the Rhode Island statutes. There has been some speculation as to whether the availability of this “abbreviated” form of reorganization might prompt run-off companies, or those preparing to enter a run-off mode, to re-domicile in Rhode Island.